Charles Darwin's unfunny joke

World Net Daily ^ | jan 27, 2007 | Pat Boone

[balch3]

One of my favorite early Steve Martin routines went something like this: "Would you like to make a million dollars and pay no taxes? OK. First, make a million dollars. Now, just don't pay any taxes; and if somebody from the IRS asks you about it, just say … 'I forgot!'"

Nonsense? Sure. But funny, especially as Steve delivered it? You bet.

But there's some absurd nonsense, not especially funny, being taught our school kids every day, in almost every school in America.

Darwin's theory of evolution.

(Column continues below)

"But it's science," you say. No, not really. Certainly, not yet, if it ever will be. It's a theory, an extremely farfetched, unproven theory and – at its base, its fundamental core – terribly unscientific!

To me (and I'll explain, so stay with me) this theory is exactly like Steve Martin's joke. It starts with a wish, a desire, proceeds through a ludicrous construction or process, and leads to a preposterous conclusion.

But this unfunny joke has been taken very seriously by a host of scientists, and now most educators, and it has been universally accepted as "fact" by most universities and school systems. And woe to the teacher, from grade school through college, who dares to question this improbable, unproven theory. If he or she dares to suggest or present the alternative theory of Intelligent Design – the vastly more plausible notion that this incredible universe and all living things point logically to a Creator with an intelligence far beyond our feeble comprehension (no matter how many Ph.D. degrees we might have among us) – lawsuits and intimidation will surely follow that teacher.

In one of his many excellent and substantive mailings, D. James Kennedy drew my attention to Tom DeRosa, who grew up Catholic in Brooklyn and spent his high-school years at a Catholic seminary. He was voted "Best Seminarian" in 1964, but one year later, instead of taking vows to enter the priesthood, he became an atheist.

His encounter with Darwin in college led to that decision. "There was a point where I became so rebellious that I yelled out, 'No God!' I remember saying, 'I'm free, I'm liberated,'" DeRosa recalled. "I can do what I want to do; man is in charge! It was pure, exhilarating rebellion!"

That rebellion soured after a while, and after 13 years as a respected public-school science teacher, he experienced a spiritual awakening that completely changed his perception of existence – and science. He's now founder and president of the Creation Studies Institute and author of "Evidence for Creation: Intelligent Answers for Open Minds."

Did his IQ leak out his ears? Did he cease being a scientist? Far from it; he became a real scientist, an honest seeker after truth who could look at facts without a predisposed belief and actually see the obvious all around us.

As a real scientist, he looked again at what he'd gullibly accepted in college. And, examining the prevalent claim that life "evolved" from molecule to man by a series of biological baby steps, tiny mutations over millions of years, he realized there is no historical evidence for that claim. He writes, "Millions upon millions of fossils have been collected to date, but there is no evidence of transition fossils, that is, fossils of organisms in an intermediate stage of development between steps on the evolutionary ladder."

Had you thought about that? If all life on this planet were actually in a process of "evolution," would every species evolve in lock step, regardless of different environments? Or wouldn't there be all the intermediate steps still in evidence, at various places around the globe? Wouldn't there be plenty of evolving apes, tending toward homo sapiens, in the jungles and rain forests, possibly developing verbal skills and capable of elementary math and reasoning?

None such. Ever. Nada. Apes have always been apes, and humans always human (though some of us less so than others).

I wonder if any science teachers today ever share with their students that Charles Darwin acknowledged "the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe … as the result of blind chance or necessity." If the originator of the theory of evolution and the author of "The Origin of Species" (the book which later students eagerly used as an excuse to leave a Creator out of the picture) couldn't imagine everything we see and know happening without some design and purpose – why should any of us?

Why indeed?

Could it be that this whole evolution idea has grown out of a deep desire to escape the implications that necessarily accompany the concept of an infinite Intelligence, a Creator? If humans want to prove some theory, no matter how farfetched and self-serving, they will inevitably find some "evidence" that they can wedge into their theory.

Some years ago, Johnny Carson had a lady on his "Tonight Show" who had a large collection of potato chips, each of which she said resembled some famous person. And if you looked at the chip from a certain angle, and maybe squinted just right, you could see what she was referring to. While she bent down to carefully select another chip, Johnny removed one she said looked like George Washington, and replaced it with one he had under his desk. Then, when she had straightened up, he "absentmindedly" picked up the substituted chip and put it in his mouth, crunching loudly. The horror on her face was a huge laugh for the audience, and Johnny quickly relieved her, handing back the George Washington potato chip, intact.

This decades-long scavenger hunt, in which intelligent and educated seekers keep digging up artifacts to "prove" an unprovable and patently unscientific concept, is very much like the potato chip lady on "The Tonight Show": You see what you want to see. Whether it's there or not.

I'm grateful to Joseph Farah and the editors here at WND for letting me take this space each week. This topic, I feel, is so important – and I've got so much to say about it – that I'll pick up here, in this space, next week. I hope you'll stop by.

Related special offers:

"The Case Against Darwin"

"Tornado in A Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism"

Pat Boone, descendent of the legendary pioneer Daniel Boone, has been a top-selling recording artist, the star of his own hit TV series, a movie star, a Broadway headliner, and a best-selling author in a career that has spanned half a century. During the classic rock & roll era of the 1950s, he sold more records than any artist except Elvis Presley. To learn more about Pat, please visit his website.

[Coyoteman]

In one of his many excellent and substantive mailings, D. James Kennedy drew my attention to Tom DeRosa, who grew up Catholic in Brooklyn and spent his high-school years at a Catholic seminary. He was voted "Best Seminarian" in 1964, but one year later, instead of taking vows to enter the priesthood, he became an atheist.

...after 13 years as a respected public-school science teacher, he experienced a spiritual awakening that completely changed his perception of existence – and science. He's now founder and president of the Creation Studies Institute and author of "Evidence for Creation: Intelligent Answers for Open Minds."

Did his IQ leak out his ears? Did he cease being a scientist? Far from it; he became a real scientist, an honest seeker after truth who could look at facts without a predisposed belief and actually see the obvious all around us.

As a real scientist, he looked again at what he'd gullibly accepted in college. And, examining the prevalent claim that life "evolved" from molecule to man by a series of biological baby steps, tiny mutations over millions of years, he realized there is no historical evidence for that claim. He writes, "Millions upon millions of fossils have been collected to date, but there is no evidence of transition fossils, that is, fossils of organisms in an intermediate stage of development between steps on the evolutionary ladder."

I looked on the website of the to see what type of "science" they advocate. Here is the Creation Studies Institute Mission Statement.

Mission

We believe that God has called this ministry to serve the church community, the general public and the academic community with the purpose of promoting the biblical foundation of creation so that ultimately, the lost will be led to their Creator and Christians will become stronger in their faith.

Vision

Our vision is to disseminate information that supports the origins of man and the universe as stated in the literal interpretation of the Genesis account by equipping Christians, the general public and the scientific community through exemplary educational programs, exciting creation field expeditions, hands-on creation workshops, seminars, and an on-campus interactive creation science center and museum.

Goal

Our primary goal is to disseminate information that supports the origins of man and the universe as stated in the literal interpretation of the Genesis account. It is our desire to use this information to establish a specialized program in Creation Studies, incorporating several courses of training for future church leaders.

Ministry Motto

"Reaching the World with the Truths of Creation"

It is our heart’s desire as a ministry, to be used as a tool for equipping the believer with the knowledge needed to refute the lies of evolution. We believe that through this knowledge, the believer’s faith is affirmed in such a way as to cause them to confidently share with others, the truth of Creation as told in the Bible.

Sorry, Pat, but you got fooled. The only science there is creation "science."

Its pretty similar to what the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research have for their "science."

All three of these groups are doing pure apologetics, not science.

[Coyoteman]

Theory? Law? Hypothesis?

Confused?

I posted a list of scientific definitions earlier today here.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Good, So have I.

I asked the same question on another Darwin thread and only one other person said "they had read it".

[LeGrande]

If a theory is something scientifically proven what is theoretical about it? You may be comfusing 'theory' with 'law.'

Are there any laws? Pretty much everything is a theory. Newtons theory of gravity, Einsteins theories, Bohrs theories, Darwins theories, etc.

[onedoug]

Francis S Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

Looking at this from the standpoint of genetics is compelling. His arguments moved me from about 75 to 85%. And I'm a believer.

[gcruse]

Godwin's Law, for sure.

[Dinsdale]

Laws are almost always proven false but kept around because they are still useful for some ranges of values. e.g. Newtons laws of motion are good as long as V < < C (speeds are much less then the speed of light).

I bet that explanation didn't help a bit.

Nothing is ever proven in science.

[tomkat]

Pat, shutup, and don't sing either, k ?

[LiteKeeper]

yuppers

[WingBolt]

So is "theory of gravity", and "theory of relativity", etc. The scientific meaning of the word "theory" does not mean
what you think it means.

[WingBolt]

Yes, but not all theories have equal validity.

But first off, your saying "it's a theory" is meaningless then...

[WingBolt]

it's all part of the same thing, meant to weaken our Constitutional society.

This sounds like Dr.Strangelove, the communist subversion of our precious bodily fluids. What in the world does Darwin have to do with the Constitution???

[WingBolt]

Francis Collins does not reject evolution...

[Hank Kerchief]

The American Heritage^® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.  2000.

hypothesis

SYLLABICATION:	hy·poth·e·sis
PRONUNCIATION:	h-pth-ss
NOUN:	Inflected forms: pl. hy·poth·e·ses (-sz) 1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. 2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption. 3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.

 

The American Heritage^® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.  2000.

theory

SYLLABICATION:	the·o·ry
PRONUNCIATION:	th-r, thîr
NOUN:	Inflected forms: pl. the·o·ries 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. 2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory. 3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics. 4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory. 5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime. 6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

A theory, in science, is a hypothesis that has been verified or proven.

 

Long misuse of these terms has lead to great confusion. Newton's "theory" of gravity is correct. Evolutionary "theory" is incorrect. Evolution is a hypothesis, but not a scientific one. The criteria of science are, repeatability, predictability, non-contradiction, and falsifiability. Evolution cannot meet any of these criteria. (It contradicts the long established theory so important to medicine that there cannot be spontaneous generation of life, for example.)

 

Hank

[Central Scrutiniser]

Its good to see that conservative entertainers are just as stupid as liberal entertainers.

Hey Pat, shut up and sing.

[canuck_conservative]

There's the old canard again - evolution is about the DEVELOPMENT of life, not the ORIGIN.

Nice try, but you'll have to do a little better.

[Central Scrutiniser]

Here we go again, the ignorance parade has started....

[Alter Kaker]

When I want a singer who can cover black R & B songs badly and without attribution, I'll turn to Pat Boone. But when I want a cogent analysis of Darwinian evolution, I'll turn to someone with a little more expertise in the field.

[eleni121]

Theories are not fact/s. Teaching them as thus does a great epistemological disservice to creative thinking and research.

[gcruse]

"A theory, in science, is a hypothesis that has been verified or proven."

Take another look at definition 6 --

"An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."

The only place I could find the word 'proven' was in your definition of the word.